Brian Martin continues DCLG evidence on Lakanal. Internal email shows he thought the impact of panels was being 'over-egged', preferring focus on internal compartmentation. Admits class naught is not a combustibility test in the binary sense, and that 476 tests don't control burning droplets.
00:26:00 would you ask mr martin to come back in please okay
00:26:07 okay
00:26:13 all right mr martin are you ready to carry on yes sir thank you very much yes mr melinda yes mr chairman thank you very much mr martin can we now turn please to some later correspondence this time from 2013 at clg one triple
00:26:26 this time from 2013 at clg one triple zero five five two eight
00:26:33 now this uh is uh an email run from march 2013 and if we go to page two we can see that there's an email
00:26:44 um there's a copy of well there's an email from
00:26:52 if we go to page two sorry we need page two for this
00:27:21 yes thank you very much uh and on page two
00:27:25 two uh you can see an email from mike atkins to a large number of uh recipients uh including uh
00:27:36 um i think including you attaching the short supplementary report from david crowder
00:27:45 and the names in that list will be familiar to many in this inquiry um
00:27:51 um at the time of the uh inquest into the deaths uh that had started in the january of 2013
00:28:00 2013 and was well underway wasn't it as at the first of march um i believe so yes now if we go to page one of this email run please we can see anthony byrd's email
00:28:11 anthony byrd's email uh of the 4th of march 2013. uh
00:28:16 uh in the middle of the screen which sends uh the report to you and stephen kelly yes
00:28:24 yes yes yes
00:28:26 yes yes uh and he says this i find item e most telling here both the question and the answer so if the right panels had been fitted then one could have expected less in the way of falling debris
00:28:37 in the way of falling debris which in turn may have limited the starting of fires in the lower flats which in turn may have meant that the lfb may not have moved its bridgehead lower down the stairs i think we can see where the mps are going with this
00:28:49 where the mps are going with this now if we go to the supplementary report which was attached and made its way to you that is bre405886
00:28:59 and then let's look at item e to which mr bird is referring you that we find that at page three in the document that's bre four zeros five eight eight six um and the first page
00:29:12 um and the first page of that
00:29:20 is
00:29:23 uh the bre letter of the 1st of march 2013 setting out the instructions and if we go to page 3
00:29:33 at e it says if the composite panels have complied with the requirements is it possible to express a view on whether the ability of debris within flats 65 and 79 to be blown out of those flats
00:29:45 and 79 to be blown out of those flats and fall
00:29:46 and fall into flats below would have been reduced and
00:29:51 and uh
00:29:51 uh you can see the response below that i'll read it to you if the composite panels had complied with the requirements set out in david walker's report i would have expected them to remain in
00:30:02 i would have expected them to remain in situ for some time given that fires in flats 65 and 79 were not unduly severe and no more severe than the conditions achieved in the standard furnace used to assess fire
00:30:13 standard furnace used to assess fire resistance i would have expected the panels to last 30 minutes or more during that time i would have expected these panels to act as a physical barrier to burning debris produced within the room this would have
00:30:24 within the room this would have significantly reduced the amount of debris from within the flats which could have been blown out of those flats now going i just i'll show you that and i want to get back to the email
00:30:36 and i want to get back to the email and please it's clg one triple zero five five two eight which is your response to anthony bird's question based on e that i've just read you right and um
00:30:48 here is your response uh also march the fourth uh six minutes later
00:30:54 later and you say but the falling debris could have been from the bird netting or some other crap falling out the window i still think they are over egging the impact of the panels although they
00:31:05 impact of the panels although they clearly didn't help matters now first who is they in that second sentence
00:31:16 i i i don't remember the email distinctly so i i can't say for certain who i was referring to um it could have been lfb or or the metropolitan police i'm not sure or the
00:31:28 metropolitan police i'm not sure or the bre or david walker it could have been yeah i'm sorry i can't right did you intend that comment to mean
00:31:36 to mean in the context of the falling debris which ignited the fires below it or more broadly
00:31:43 i think that's what i'm referring to is that is that falling debris right why did you think that the impact of the panels was being over egged in your expression
00:31:57 it's difficult to remember what i was thinking about this particular email but
00:32:01 but i think
00:32:03 i think there had been a lot of focus on those panels
00:32:06 panels when
00:32:07 when a lot of the issues that occurred in that incident were internal fire spread issues associated with the internal compartmentation that i think that's what i'm i i think
00:32:19 that i think that's what i'm i i think that's the point i'm making is that there was
00:32:22 there was there seemed to be a lot of focus on those panels that had been installed at the time of the refurbishment um
00:32:33 um when there are other i think what i consider to be more important at the time issues with the internal compartmentation in that building
00:32:41 building where did you first formed the view that
00:32:46 that they whoever they are were over egging as you put it the impact of the panels i i i can't remember i'm sorry
00:32:57 i i i can't remember i'm sorry how do you express that view to david crowder
00:33:04 the bre um
00:33:10 i can't remember enough detail to be sure what i had i hadn't said to anybody
00:33:15 was it the position that you were very keen to emphasize repeatedly as we've now seen that the falling flaming debris
00:33:26 falling flaming debris came from the flats rather than parts of the panels themselves
00:33:35 um
00:33:40 well that was clearly one of the two sources of debris um
00:33:47 debris um i wasn't didn't have any particular motive in that it's just it was it was a point well you say you didn't have any particular motive in that but one can detect from the documents i've
00:33:58 one can detect from the documents i've shown you perhaps you don't agree that your position seemed to be one of taking the emphasis away from the effect or impact of the panels and focusing more on the
00:34:09 and focusing more on the effect of
00:34:11 effect of burning debris blowing out of the flats and falling to the flats below and causing secondary fires is that
00:34:18 is that fair
00:34:20 fair um
00:34:21 um i wasn't trying to detract attention from from the panels i think it was just
00:34:28 we were discussing what we thought about the incident and there may well have been other
00:34:35 other complexities and concurrent causes of the incident but why weren't you really interested to get to the bottom of the relative contribution to the fires in the flats below the secondary
00:34:48 fires in the flats below the secondary fires and the flats below
00:34:52 which had been made by the panels as opposed to
00:34:56 to combustible material from the contents of the flats above
00:35:10 it would have been useful to know i guess but um it it was clear i think it was impossible to know for sure what what material had fallen where and where it come from well that may be but
00:35:23 where it come from well that may be but were you not interested for future reference to know whether or not these panels might behave the same way in a later high-rise fire and cause secondary fires below
00:35:36 and cause secondary fires below in the context of thinking about approved document b i think at that time i was thinking well we've already addressed the potential for
00:35:44 for burning material to be falling from the from the wall construction well we've been through that mr martin but i think many people would disagree with that not least because you've still
00:35:55 with that not least because you've still got class naught hanging around in diagram 40. well certainly for this building what was beneath what was in those panels was it was thermal insulation so um that's not that's not a matter of
00:36:07 um that's not that's not a matter of dispute i i fully understand that um the question of filler and so on is a contentious matter i understand that but this here we were looking at insulated panels
00:36:19 panels do you agree with with this that if you look at diagram 40 and you look at the european classification b s3 d2 d2
00:36:29 s3 d2 d2 means that the production of burning droplets is wholly unregulated did you know that um
00:36:40 well only in safari if you've got very little that's burning you'll get very little burning debris well you'll get a class b panel burning with d2 droplets
00:36:52 burning with d2 droplets did you understand that that was either no or or very low levels of restriction
00:37:03 i didn't know that whether i was thinking about that at the time i can't be sure and similarly he wouldn't have been thinking about what is this right where the class naught with its 476 part six and seven tests regulated
00:37:14 regulated falling burning droplets
00:37:19 presumably you would have if you thought about it you would have realized that those tests did not yes
00:37:27 yes they didn't control burning droplets but they tended to reduce to to reduce the relative combustibility of the materials involved and therefore you're less
00:37:38 involved and therefore you're less likely to have burning material yeah you see what i'm really putting to you is it why didn't it why didn't the lateral incident
00:37:47 incident and what you knew about it by march 2013 the time of the inquest prompt you to think about whether or not adb particularly 12.6 diagram 40 and
00:38:01 adb particularly 12.6 diagram 40 and 12.7
00:38:03 12.7 was sufficiently robust to regulate the the
00:38:07 the one of the potential causes of downward fire spread at lachnal namely falling burning debris which could have come
00:38:18 have come impart
00:38:19 impart from the panels
00:38:28 um sorry can you rephrase the questions well i can do it's a long question i'll repeat the question yes why didn't you think about given what you knew about the contribution that the panels had
00:38:39 the contribution that the panels had made the downward spread of fire through falling debris why didn't you think at the time march 2013 about whether or not a proof document b uh was robust enough to regulate it
00:38:56 i think we would have discussed that and i think
00:38:58 i think i i can't remember the detail of the conclusions that we came to um
00:39:06 um i think genuinely we thought um approved document b was doing enough the 2006 edition right
00:39:16 let's move then to the inquest itself uh now it's right i think isn't it that before giving evidence as you told us this morning you were asked by the coroner to provide written answers to a
00:39:27 coroner to provide written answers to a series of questions yes and you did that in a witness statement didn't you yes can we look at it clg 3019202 date of the 12th of march 2013.
00:39:41 now i'm going to ask you please to look at page five first because on that page we see uh that there is a signature above your name is that your signature yes and above that there's a statement of truth i believe
00:39:52 there's a statement of truth i believe that the facts in this statement are true yes yes and if we go back to page one please paragraph two uh you say this i should make it clear that whilst i'm happy to alert the inquest to the
00:40:03 happy to alert the inquest to the relevant statutory guidance the department for communities and local government the department has no authority to give direction on what does or doesn't comply with the building regulations legislation i have been
00:40:15 regulations legislation i have been explicitly asked to address the following points
00:40:21 now um
00:40:25 who asked you to do that was that the coroner
00:40:28 coroner yes there was a written um written request it was very specific right and did that specificity come as a result of the department telling the coroner that you had no authority and that you would only
00:40:40 had no authority and that you would only respond to specific questions um not that i recall no right but i i can't say for certain i can't i can't remember the the detail of it i remember that they'd been um
00:40:53 they'd been um in in the process of the inquest there'd been um
00:40:57 been um some specific um
00:41:01 issues that had arisen over the interpretation of building regulations which
00:41:08 in a way it was distracting from the the work of the the inquest um and um
00:41:15 between the department and and the inquest we concluded that we might be able to
00:41:20 able to resolve that quickly to allow the inquest to continue its
00:41:25 its work
00:41:31 a paragraph three on page two you say this i've referred to the 2000 edition of approved document b adb incorporating the 2002 amendments which i understand is relevant to the working
00:41:42 i understand is relevant to the working question
00:41:44 question were you told that or did you assume it um
00:41:59 i'm not sure where i got that information from right
00:42:04 so we've seen that in 2011 that you corresponded on the basis of the 2006 version but here you're now saying that you you're referring to the 2000 edition and indeed
00:42:15 referring to the 2000 edition and indeed i think it's right because you told us so this morning that you realized that it was a 2000 or 2002 edition that was relevant to the latino refurbishment at quite an early stage in 2009
00:42:27 quite an early stage in 2009 i believe so yes yes now i just want to pick up on a number of matters with you relating to points c d and e
00:42:34 d and e um can we deal with c please that's a page four
00:42:41 and a page four paragraph 16 under the heading which panels were required to be class naught you say
00:42:52 paragraph 7 above explains the relevant guidance
00:42:55 guidance it is only those parts of the external surfaces that are themselves above 18 meters in height that have to be constructed of class naught material glass is such a material now if we go back to page 2 and look at
00:43:08 now if we go back to page 2 and look at paragraph 7 next you say this in section 13 titled construction of external walls pages 89 to 91 paragraph 13.2 page 89
00:43:24 pages 89 to 91 paragraph 13.2 page 89 and that this is the 2000 2002 edition i should say page 89 introduces the principle of limiting the combustibility of external walls of tall buildings to reduce the danger from fire spread up the face of
00:43:36 danger from fire spread up the face of the building this relates to the need to meet class naught for walls above 18 meters in height and has no bearing on fire resistance class naught refers to the reaction to fire of the materials
00:43:49 fire of the materials used in the construction of the external surface
00:43:52 surface and why do you say here that the principle of limiting the combustibility of external walls of tall buildings relates to the need to meet class nord i think it's that's that's the point
00:44:03 i think it's that's that's the point that we've discussed a few times now is that
00:44:08 that in this context i'm using the term combustibility to to talk about the the general concept of um how
00:44:16 um how there's a sliding scale of combustibility whereas i i appreciate that the inquiry um thinks it's more of a binary point well never mind what the inquiry thinks
00:44:28 well never mind what the inquiry thinks or not
00:44:29 or not let's get to the facts i think you agree with me
00:44:32 with me that class naught itself which is based on passing two parts of 476 ps476 is not a combustibility test
00:44:43 combustibility test is it um i i i don't know many times i have to disagree with you on this point um
00:44:50 um there isn't a combustibility test there's a non-combustibility test um and then there's the question of measuring how combustible something is so the concept of combustibility is a sliding
00:45:01 concept of combustibility is a sliding scale
00:45:01 scale um
00:45:02 um and
00:45:04 and class o
00:45:05 class o is one of a range of different classifications that attempt to classify how combustible something is i think
00:45:16 i think clearly my my questions aren't really i'm not really getting through do you accept that class naught isn't a combustibility test and doesn't tell you very much about combustibility
00:45:27 tell you very much about combustibility what it tells you about is
00:45:31 prefer propagation which is the part 6 test
00:45:35 test and surface spread of flame which is the part 7 test yes which relate to the combustibility of a material well
00:45:44 well in what sense do they relate to the combustibility of the material as understood in approved document b
00:45:54 um so in this context the word combustibility is is um if you like shorthand to saying reaction to fire so it's talking about a sliding scale of combustibility rather
00:46:07 a sliding scale of combustibility rather than a binary is something combustible or not
00:46:12 right and that great respect to you is is what you told us a number of times already in your evidence yes my question is did you explain that to the coroner
00:46:24 did you explain to her that you were using the word combustibility as shorthand for reaction to fire
00:46:38 i think if you read that paragraph in whole in completeness i don't think there's any uncertainty about that perhaps you think otherwise but it says that the last sentence refers to the reaction fire of the materials used in the construction of
00:46:50 materials used in the construction of the external surface which i think is correct
00:47:02 let's look at page 7 at page 4 paragraph 17.
00:47:12 uh and you can see the heading which panels were required to be class naught
00:47:20 and you say this uh or you can see the question
00:47:23 question um
00:47:26 well let me just show you power 16 first of all just under the heading paragraph seven above explains the relevant guidance it is only those parts of the external surfaces of themselves above 18 meters in height that have to be constructed of class normal material
00:47:38 constructed of class normal material glass is such a material and then the question at d uh the extent to which the guidance on any of these points has been updated or clarified in versions of approved document b subsequent to the 2000
00:47:49 document b subsequent to the 2000 version
00:47:50 version that's the question and your answer at 17 is this the guidance which supports part b fire safety of the building regulations namely approved document b fire safety volume 2
00:48:01 fire safety volume 2 buildings other than dwelling houses was last amended in 2006 and the amendments came into effect in april 2007 with particular reference to the matters in question guidance on the construction of
00:48:12 question guidance on the construction of external walls was clarified in the 2006 amendments to avoid ambiguity the layout of the paragraphs and the wording were presented in a more definitive way with particular reference to paragraphs 13.5
00:48:23 particular reference to paragraphs 13.5 13.7 in the 2000 version of paragraph 12.5 to 9 in the 2006 version of adb now what specifically were you referring to there when you said that the guidance
00:48:35 to there when you said that the guidance on the construction of external walls was clarified to avoid ambiguity um i think the way we'd reconstructed those paragraphs to sit under a general heading of construction of external
00:48:46 heading of construction of external walls or external wall construction i can't remember the exact language uh i see so that that's
00:48:57 i see that's the layout is it a reference to the change in the layout that we saw and when we compared um the 2002 edition with the 2006 edition yeah i think what we were trying to do was
00:49:08 i think what we were trying to do was set out that um that when you're looking at the external wall construction it's a it's a combination of factors and what was the ambiguity that you were seeking to avoid by those amendments that you
00:49:19 to avoid by those amendments that you were telling the coroner here um
00:49:22 um at that time we thought we'd made it a lot clearer but you referred to ambiguity
00:49:27 ambiguity uh what was the ambiguity i don't think i was referring to anything in it specifically right um if i was i don't remember
00:49:36 when you say there that the layout of the paragraphs and wording were presented in a more definitive way what what did that what does that mean i i think the same as what i've just said um
00:49:47 as what i've just said um at that time we felt that we've made that guidance much better but by rep by structural changes i think um is that right and and some of the the other textual changes
00:49:58 some of the the other textual changes that we've made as well well you say that and um that's my next question were you intending to refer uh in part to the changes in wording of the headings to certain paragraphs
00:50:13 i think so i can't remember what i was specifically thinking of at the time i wrote this but i know that at the time of writing we thought we'd made that guidance better right can you tell us why there's no reference
00:50:24 can you tell us why there's no reference here to the introduction of the words filler material etc into the text of what became 12.7 i i guess looking at the text i've used
00:50:35 i i guess looking at the text i've used here and the question i've been asked at that time it was you know where has this guidance been changed so i was giving a explaining the structure had been changed and pointing the
00:50:48 changed and pointing the inquest at the specific paragraphs
00:50:52 well that doesn't really answer the question does it
00:50:56 does it um
00:50:58 um why didn't you point the corner squarely to the change that you had made as a result of the edge fire which addressed the use of combustible foam insulation material in an external wall panel and tell her
00:51:10 panel and tell her that the word filler material etc was intended to address that very problem by way of an amendment um
00:51:19 um i probably wasn't thinking about the word filler because it wasn't particularly relevant to the to the panels that were being discussed for the lack of house inquest i guess um and as i say i'm pointing out the
00:51:30 and as i say i'm pointing out the relevant paragraphs i would imagine that the
00:51:33 the council to the inquest you compared the text in both paragraphs well i i don't this morning i think you told us
00:51:44 this morning i think you told us i'm sorry mr martin if i'm trying for patients but this morning
00:51:53 if i seem aggravated it's because i'm tired and i apologize well let's take it slowly you told us this morning correct me if i'm wrong that that
00:52:04 correct me if i'm wrong that that one of the important if not the important amendment in 2000 the 2006 approved document was the introduction of the word filler which which restricted the core of an external
00:52:16 which restricted the core of an external wall panel to a material of limited combustibility which which was a critical difference amongst other things yes yes yes absolutely now the question therefore is well given that that
00:52:28 well given that that that critical change had made the difference in the context of the lack of fire why not bring that very change to the attention of the coroner under paragraph 17. because it didn't make the
00:52:39 17. because it didn't make the difference for the lack of fire the lack of panels were insulated panels so the question was whether whether it controlled insulation or not and that was very clear
00:52:50 well why not tell her that the removal of the qualification relating to ventilated cavities and the broadening of the restriction to material of limited combustibility
00:53:02 material of limited combustibility had had the effect of improving the guidance
00:53:06 guidance i think that might have been a more helpful thing to do at the time um i guess we didn't think of it um i
00:53:13 i tried to point look at looking at i mean i can't remember what was going through my head specifically at the point i was writing this
00:53:20 this um
00:53:21 um i think what i was trying to do was explain in general terms that we had revisited that text and this was the new text
00:53:32 mr martin i think the point that really you're being asked to consider is um although you have identified in this paragraph
00:53:40 paragraph the fact that the previous paragraph 13 5 to 13 7 had been rewritten you don't explain the respects in which they've been changed and do you think that would have been a
00:53:52 do you think that would have been a useful thing to do
00:53:55 i think in hindsight it would have been a useful thing to do so yes um i honestly thought i was giving a constructive and helpful answer at the time um
00:54:07 being asked that question i i guess i could have gone into more detail about the exact changes um
00:54:13 um whether that would have been helpful or not i'm not sure yeah all right thank you
00:54:21 were you trying to avoid scrutiny by the coroner of
00:54:29 of the word filler material etc because you knew it was less than clear and as you told us in your own evidence here we're unhappy with it in the circumstances in which it had come into adb in 2006. i don't think that's what i
00:54:41 adb in 2006. i don't think that's what i was thinking now why is there no reference here to the removal of the words
00:54:45 words um the removal of the caveat that we saw um earlier in the 2000 and 2002 edition that the last part of the second sentence of what was then
00:54:56 sentence of what was then paragraph 13.7
00:55:02 um again i i thought this was a helpful constructive answer to the question at the time um
00:55:11 i guess i could have listed all of the textual changes but it probably would have been easier just to show give the inquest the two sets of paragraphs which is what i've done
00:55:25 when you were preparing this witness statement did you have at your elbow the text of section 12 of adb 2006 and compare it with the text in section 13 of the 2002 edition well i
00:55:37 section 13 of the 2002 edition well i would have had access to it yes it would have been on my i think both copies would have been on my desk at the time yes
00:55:43 yes didn't you notice before you made your comments here on the more definitive layout that the heading for paragraph 12.7
00:55:52 was intended to apply not only to insulation but to all products and draw that to the coroner's attention i think at the time i was thinking about insulated panels because that's what
00:56:04 insulated panels because that's what were being used that that's those were the products that had been used at lacanal house when you say insulated panels do you mean do you let this be clear about definite terminology do you mean
00:56:16 about definite terminology do you mean sandwich panels um they were effectively quite narrow sandwich panels yes so how are they different from the panels
00:56:24 panels at the edge
00:56:28 they were being used for their thermal properties whereas for the edge we suspected that they weren't being used for their thermal properties and therefore they weren't thermal insulation whereas these the panels for lack of a house were
00:56:39 house were the
00:56:40 the um
00:56:42 um were acting as the the separation between the outside air and the inside air so the thermal properties were why the insulation was there so why not bring
00:56:53 so why not bring that fact to the coroner's attention and just say in simple terms that
00:57:01 a proof document be in 2006 was updated and clarified so as to tighten the restriction to ensure that the panels which were used at lachnal were no longer compliant
00:57:14 used at lachnal were no longer compliant why not say that
00:57:24 were less compliant i suppose because they weren't compliant anyway because they weren't class o um and that was the question that we were mostly focused on i guess um in hindsight i could and probably should have mentioned the insulation
00:57:42 yes now you knew by march 2013 that the composite panels at lachnal were comprised of a trespa high pressure laminate yes
00:57:55 high pressure laminate yes as well as an unidentified um foam core i think so yes yes did it occur to you at that time that it might be appropriate to flank to the coroner the potential relevance of the combustibility
00:58:08 of the combustibility and i mean that in its technical sense of the composite panels
00:58:15 i don't think it did at the time i'm not
00:58:25 i think i was focused on the specific questions rather than um
00:58:31 than um the generality of the issue which
00:58:35 which may have been wrong i'm not sure i think i i can't i have a feeling that i was instructed to answer the specific questions directly without um
00:58:46 um expressing any other points
00:58:49 points um i i can't remember for certain right
00:58:55 um let's look at the next question at the bottom of page four the extent to which there is scope for further clarification on any of these points answer the department has no immediate plans to update the guidance contained
00:59:06 plans to update the guidance contained in adb however a new style guide has been adopted for approved documents which is designed to make them easier to follow and incorporates the principles of plain english as and when adb is reviewed again this new style would be
00:59:17 reviewed again this new style would be applied
00:59:19 applied now
00:59:20 now looking at that now can you help us how did that actually answer the question that the coroner had posed to you
00:59:36 i think it was setting out the department's plans at the time
00:59:45 i suppose ultimately there's always the scope to change something if the secretary of state agrees that we should change it um [Music]
00:59:52 [Music] perhaps i took that as being obvious and didn't need to be said i don't know um at the time i thought that i i honestly thought this was a helpful response at the time i drafted it but you see the
01:00:03 the time i drafted it but you see the question was the extent to which there was scope for further clarification on any of these points
01:00:10 points did you not understand that to be a question on what on whether the department thought that in the light of what it now knew about the lack of house incident notwithstanding uh any updated or
01:00:23 notwithstanding uh any updated or clarified updates or clarifications in approved documents since 2000 there was scope for further clarification did you not understand the question in that way i don't think i did read it in that way
01:00:34 i don't think i did read it in that way but i i can't be sure this is a long time ago i honestly can't remember exactly what i was thinking um i i do remember taking what i thought was a lot of care over this and and you know when you read back
01:00:47 this and and you know when you read back these things years later forensically you do look at it and think could have said more about x or y um at the time i honestly thought i was providing a helpful answer to help
01:00:59 providing a helpful answer to help resolve um a problem that happened with the inquest
01:01:09 all right did did you when you signed this statement did you not recall the correspondence that you'd had with daniel turner of ipswich borough council only two months before the january of 2013 and his question
01:01:21 2013 and his question and the resulting chat in the office it was the cool beans emails remember those
01:01:32 i don't remember thinking about them the time but i honestly can't remember what i was thinking i i answered the specific questions to the best of my ability at the time i thought
01:01:43 best of my ability at the time i thought forensically yes there are things you can look at and say there could have been more detail in some of these paragraphs i think i i can only accept that
01:01:54 i think i i can only accept that did somebody tell you to keep your evidence as narrow and as vague as possible when answering the coroner's questions
01:02:01 questions certainly no one told me to be vague um well general then did somebody tell you to answer these questions in as generic and as general
01:02:12 questions in as generic and as general away as possible without condescending to any details no i don't think anyone told me to do that i think
01:02:18 i think our intention was to be as helpful as possible to the inquiry i
01:02:24 i i think eric that the advice i was given was to address only the questions i'd been asked and i think that was to some extent the nature of the way my evid
01:02:36 nature of the way my evid um i'm not an expert in these matters but i i was described as an evidence to the fact which meant that i wasn't to express any opinions um so i think that was one of the reasons why i was advised to focus very
01:02:49 reasons why i was advised to focus very specifically on the questions i'd been asked yes indeed focusing very specifically on the questions you've been asked but but in relation to the answers
01:03:03 why were you as generic and as general as this instead of condescending to particular details about for example
01:03:16 details about for example the questions which had arisen about the meaning and scope of 12.7 which we've already explored as they stood at march 2013
01:03:32 i i don't think i i don't remember making a conscious decision not to include those things um as i say i thought i was giving a a constructive and helpful answer to the
01:03:44 a constructive and helpful answer to the inquest um focus on the questions they'd ask me and i guess relevant to this particular construction they were focused on let's turn next to your aura well before
01:03:55 let's turn next to your aura well before we leave question e can i just invite your comment on this what i think you were asked in question e is could adb be made clearer
01:04:07 adb be made clearer in certain respects and that invites a preliminary response yes or no
01:04:14 yes or no before you go on to say whether the department has any plans to do anything do you see no what is there really the point you're being asked to
01:04:22 asked to i think so i i think there's at least three ways of reading that question um
01:04:32 i don't think i'd read it in the way you're suggesting but i can see that is one possible interpretation um
01:04:44 i don't remember thinking about this this i mean this compared to the other questions in this this um this statement i probably didn't think this one was as significant perhaps that was wrong
01:04:56 significant perhaps that was wrong um
01:04:59 well it's a slightly difficult question if you think you're not entitled to express any form of opinion because in a way it's inviting you to do that but if you didn't read it in that way
01:05:10 but if you didn't read it in that way then
01:05:12 then obviously your answer is going to be going to reflect the way in which you read it
01:05:16 read it i think so so yeah um
01:05:22 all right well perhaps i'm not sure if i can come up with a better answer than the one i've given given there i mean there's always scope to improve some text i guess um and
01:05:33 and if the sec if the department or the secretary of state had decided to change text then obviously there would have been scope to do so um
01:05:43 i think still at the time i think we thought it was the we give them good guidance
01:05:47 guidance right thank you very much just to be clear on that last answer did you read the word scope as um
01:05:56 as um meaning
01:05:58 meaning opportunity or did you me did you read the word scope
01:06:04 meaning need they're different
01:06:10 i can't say well i thought at the time i'm reading it now thinking it means opportunity but i can see that perhaps you could read it different ways did you think of going back to the coroner and asking for clarification on
01:06:21 coroner and asking for clarification on what you regarded at the time as an ambiguity in her question um i don't think i realized that i didn't think it was an ambiguity at the time i think i probably would have done um
01:06:33 well let's turn to your oral evidence now um you'll recall that that covered a full day yes do you remember that yes um now we're obviously not going to go through all of it but i just want to concentrate on two
01:06:44 it but i just want to concentrate on two specific aspects of your evidence on the day
01:06:48 day inq
01:06:50 inq 3015070 please
01:06:54 now this is the 13th of march 2013 the day after you signed your statement on the 12th
01:07:02 and that's the first page uh where you're uh introduced by mr maxwell scott of council council to the inquest
01:07:13 the inquest and if we go please to page 51 in the transcript we can see some questions and answers the context so you're clear was a series of questions from council about
01:07:24 questions from council about fire resistance of balcony panels and you would explain your view that none was required and if we pick it up at line 11 you were asked this question on that footing the fitting of panels which caught fire within one minute and
01:07:36 which caught fire within one minute and burnt through within four and a half minutes
01:07:38 minutes would be what perfectly acceptable in accordance with the proof document b and your answer at line 15 is well if they caught fire they probably weren't class naught now that answer was do you accept
01:07:50 now that answer was do you accept inaccurate and wholly misleading wasn't it
01:07:53 wasn't it i don't think it's wholly misleading but i i i think it's fair to say that it it wasn't as precise an answer as i could have given i i think probably over the years i've got better
01:08:05 probably over the years i've got better understanding of some of the limitations of the class o classification which i might not have fully understood then and it gives a clear impression doesn't it that something which is class nor won't catch fire
01:08:17 catch fire doesn't it
01:08:24 and i think to some extent i thought that was true
01:08:30 how could you thought that was true
01:08:40 because you because it things that the class know are harder to ignite than other things well what was it about the limitations of class naught that you didn't understand when you were giving evidence
01:08:51 understand when you were giving evidence to the coroner in march 2013
01:09:00 i think i probably had greater confidence in it as a classification than perhaps i do now um
01:09:06 um but what was it as a matter of technical uh ingredients that you didn't understand when you gave your answer well if they caught fire they probably weren't class nought
01:09:22 i think i recognize now that a classical component could still eventually be ignited um we'd looked at the
01:09:33 be ignited um we'd looked at the question of
01:09:36 um surfaces and and components beneath that
01:09:40 that um and so
01:09:42 um and so i think
01:09:44 i think it was it was an imprecise answer um to the to the question and does that impression belie the fact that
01:09:52 that in reality you were conflating class naught
01:09:55 naught and
01:09:56 and the concept of limited or non-combustible
01:10:02 i don't think so i think class class class not materials and unless they're one of these materials which is which has if you like circumvented the intention of the test through um very thin layers of foil
01:10:18 tend to be quite difficult to ignite
01:10:27 that that's why class note was introduced into the building regulations for external walls in the first place to just help you with this does it suggest that the surface is difficult to ignite or that
01:10:39 ignite or that once ignited it burns rather slowly
01:10:46 it's probably a combination of those factors well i'm sorry interrupt you but doesn't the test suggest it's concerned with the speed at which it burns and of course the heat generated by the burning
01:10:57 course the heat generated by the burning rather than the difficulty in the initial initial ignition i suppose the the the part seven test the surface spread
01:11:08 the part seven test the surface spread of flame test to some extent is linked to how easy a material is to ignite
01:11:15 ignite i'm
01:11:16 i'm probably stretching my area of expertise but
01:11:21 but the harder something is to ignite the slower flames are likely to spread along its surface that seems reasonable to me and the fire propagation
01:11:32 and the fire propagation test adds a level of looking at how much heat is released when it does that um
01:11:42 so perhaps it was an ill-considered answer at the time i i think but um
01:11:50 i think it's fair to say that there's there's a link to harry readily something will ignite to to classo and i i i think that's that's right i'm sure they're fire scientists that might disagree with me but that's my that was
01:12:01 disagree with me but that's my that was definitely my understanding then and i think it still is now thank you great yes well let's just pick up that theme while we're on it can we go to page 72 please
01:12:11 please line 21
01:12:15 at line 21 you're asked this question so class naught doesn't necessarily mean a surface that won't ignite it just it means one that has limits as to the time and the rate at which fire
01:12:26 to the time and the rate at which fire should spread is that a fair comment answer at line 25 yes it's
01:12:31 it's it will burn just not very much now again that's not an accurate answer either is it i think it's what i was just trying to say um
01:12:50 think i think that was i don't know what else to express it um the the
01:12:56 the the something with a low surface spread of flame and and low fire propagation is going to burn less than something that's got high values on those tests well now we've been through the evidence
01:13:08 well now we've been through the evidence on the cc 1924 tests done in 2001 as the preparatory work funded by government leading up to br 135 published by you and sarah colwell in 2003
01:13:21 and sarah colwell in 2003 you were aware were you not by march 2013 a decade on more
01:13:27 more that a product achieving class naught could suffer extensive burning
01:13:34 i don't think that was in my mind at the time
01:13:37 time why did you give this answer it will burn just not very much
01:13:44 i believe that was the uh the right answer
01:13:50 why did you believe it was the right answer
01:14:00 i saw class i was being on the sliding scale of combustibility not as good as material limited combustibility but better than class one
01:14:13 the class naught isn't on the scale of sliding sliding scale of combustibility is it
01:14:18 is it well i think it is well well um
01:14:24 do you accept or did you remember that there is a british standard national class
01:14:30 class test for limited combustibility namely 476 part 11.
01:14:38 that's about combustibility
01:14:42 it's a different test well it's got it's got it's got combustibility in the title it doesn't mean to say that the other tests don't i i i
01:14:49 i i i i still take the view the term combustibility is a general term so you go back to your answer you gave us a number of times now this morning which is your you use the word combustibility as a
01:15:00 as a shorthand for reaction to fire and lump within it class naught yes yeah
01:15:08 yes yeah going back to class naught and its tendency to burn
01:15:15 uh had you no thought to the uae fires that had occurred the year before for example which had used acm external wall panels
01:15:30 i don't think i made that connection at the time i probably should have done and what about making the connection with the evidence given to the select committee in the summer of 1999 and the select committee's
01:15:42 and the select committee's report and recommendation on the 14th of december 1999 about class naught
01:15:50 have you forgotten that well i wasn't directly involved in that perhaps if i'd been more involved in that i'd have given this more thought at what stage well
01:16:01 well let me put it slightly differently i think it's right isn't it that at no stage during your evidence did you say that if lachen or house had been refurbished in or after 2007
01:16:12 in or after 2007 then the pur foam in the window panels would have been non-compliant with the approved document because they were combustible and not of limited combustibility
01:16:24 and not of limited combustibility he didn't say that anywhere as we can see
01:16:27 see no i think as i say i was i was addressing quite specific questions at the time but why were you why did you not at least in the course of your answers
01:16:37 alert the coroner to that fact
01:16:44 i think i was focused on just answering those those specific questions um
01:16:51 perhaps i should embrace that but
01:16:54 but at that time that wasn't that wasn't in in my mind i think the the main issue in question um really related to the question of fire resistance and i think i was more
01:17:05 resistance and i think i was more focused on that at the time but class north isn't isn't
01:17:11 isn't about fire resistance it's about as you say combustibility which means reaction to fire and these questions are about reaction to fire yes so why why not just say
01:17:21 say if this refurb had been done after 2007 then these panels couldn't have been used
01:17:29 i think because we were talking about whether or not they should have been class o um that that's that was the question that had risen in the inquest and i think i was focused on that specific question um
01:17:44 an explanation not an excuse i think i should have mentioned the insulation i'm not sure why i didn't now you didn't raise the possibility which i would suggest you it was an obvious possibility that the combustible nature of either the trespa hpl or the
01:17:57 nature of either the trespa hpl or the um the unidentified foam insulation all both together as a composite panel may have been significant factors in the external fast bread we don't see that
01:18:10 no i mean i i wasn't i wasn't there to give general advice on on on the fire that that was that was for other
01:18:17 other the experts that were advising the inquiry inquest right did do you say you didn't realize the relevance of that matter at the time
01:18:27 um well it wasn't relevant to the specific questions i was being asked now let's go back please to page 43 in the transcript
01:18:37 and on page 43 we have line 13
01:18:41 13 where there's the question as follows given that there were so many wrong analyses by people who are applying their mind to approve document b do you agree that it might be desirable if a proof document b could be revisited and
01:18:53 document b could be revisited and reworked so that it was clearer to those who had to apply it as to what the conclusions ought to be and your answer is this at line 19. that's an interesting point trying to
01:19:04 that's an interesting point trying to make these documents simple to use is a challenge designing buildings is a complex subject my own experience from dealing with the inquiries that i get is generally most professionals in the industry seem to cope with applying the guidance without too much difficulty if
01:19:17 guidance without too much difficulty if it was generating the kind of problems that you might imply from the discussions that you've had here i think i would know about it and i don't what experience were you referring to there
01:19:29 there um i
01:19:30 um i think that again from from memory most of the contentious issues that were cropping up here related to the question as to whether or not the walls needed to have um fire resistance or not
01:19:43 have um fire resistance or not um
01:19:45 and
01:19:49 my experience was is that people understood um those provisions um so that was the point i was making is if people lots of people were having that
01:20:00 people lots of people were having that problem
01:20:01 problem i would have thought that would have come to my attention and at that time i didn't think we were getting a lot of inquiries on those issues
01:20:14 who are the professionals that you're referring to here um various people that i would bump into and talk to on the telephone right why do you say with such confidence that if the clarity of the guidance was
01:20:25 the clarity of the guidance was generating the kinds of problems that coroner was referring to then you say you i think i would know about it how would you know about it um by the number of inquiries that that we
01:20:36 we we had been receiving and at that point we weren't getting that many um
01:20:44 some of the questions on external wall construction probably manifested themselves a year or so later i think
01:20:53 right moving to line uh page 45 then line five
01:21:00 uh you say or sorry there's a question actually um
01:21:08 it's quite a longish question uh
01:21:13 uh let's
01:21:15 let's let's stick with the answer at line five i think the idea that you could have no ambiguities i think is and then you go on a nice objective i'd be surprised if it's possible
01:21:27 i'd be surprised if it's possible question but nevertheless there could be some reworking couldn't there to increase clarity and then you say any document can be improved yeah
01:21:37 now do you agree that at least from the face of the transcript this is a quite it's quite a defensive uh answer in the face of criticisms of the approved document
01:21:56 i suppose i can't remember what i was thinking at the time um i think um
01:22:02 um i i know the coroner was frustrated with some of the confusion that occurred during the inquest um some of that was
01:22:13 some of that was probably a fair criticism to say the approved document could be improved but i think a lot of that also was that
01:22:20 the nature of the way various um
01:22:26 councils that were at the inquest were um pursuing particular lines of argument um
01:22:33 um and
01:22:35 it's not a very constructive way to to review it to review a document with in that kind of environment um so
01:22:45 so i think that's the point i was trying to make there is is that in practice i mean certainly the issue of um arguing that the external wall should all have two hours fire resistance that wasn't
01:22:56 two hours fire resistance that wasn't something that was occurring on a daily basis mr military take it this is a question which began on the previous page was put by mr maxwell scott is that right it is um and did did
01:23:08 scott is that right it is um and did did in in his question did he um let that show identify specific respects in which he was suggesting this document might be clarified
01:23:18 clarified well that is this is a good question uh and the answer is um uh no not really but the the there's a long run up to this which starts a number of pages earlier which is about 120 minute fire
01:23:30 earlier which is about 120 minute fire resistance uh to the outside surfaces of latino house
01:23:36 uh and thinking that was wrong that was one of the suggestions and there are a number of contentions here which have nothing to do with reaction to that well i'm not inviting you to read a lot of material that's what i was trying to avoid i understand
01:23:47 what i was trying to avoid i understand the difficulties just that what the witnesses said is well a sort of generalized suggestion that the document could be improved it's one with which is quite hard to quarrel in relation to any document but not very
01:23:59 in relation to any document but not very helpful if one's actually trying to focus on a specific no uh area no um but i think the best thing i can do um to try to answer your question is to start
01:24:10 try to answer your question is to start at page 44 line 21
01:24:14 and that will give us the lead in will we give you the lead in yeah well i'm not trying to elucidate much more no respect to mr maxwell
01:24:23 and at 44 understood he says well it's a matter for our coroner who has the power to make recommendations for the future and we've heard what you you've said about the introduction of plain english and
01:24:34 the introduction of plain english and designing this document so instead of being two columns it's one column but it might be something that the coroner might have in mind as recommending that this document really should be re-edited in order that there can be no ambiguities of this kind
01:24:47 there can be no ambiguities of this kind in the future what would you say to that and then i've read to you the the exchange after that yes thank you um now i'd like to get page 78 please if we can line 24.
01:25:06 uh and there at line 24
01:25:10 line 24 you say
01:25:11 you say and and
01:25:14 uh and i should certainly take you to the coroner's question at line five first um up the screen can we scroll up please to line five the coroner asks you this it's just it seems to me that if you you
01:25:26 it's just it seems to me that if you you need a specialist engineer to take you through a document in order to get straightforward answers to fairly basic straightforward questions then the guidance document isn't really doing what it says on the tin is it and you say i think it might be a little
01:25:37 and you say i think it might be a little unfair what you tend to find is that different contractors and different manufacturers and other people involved in the process learn the bit of the building regulations that affect that the kind of thing they do so in practice a lot of them will
01:25:48 so in practice a lot of them will probably never directly refer to the approved document that's one of the benefits of schemes like the fencer scheme for instance where common work is replacement of windows and rather than the members of that scheme clawing their way through the building regulation
01:25:59 way through the building regulation they'll use the guidance that they're given by the scheme provider which is explaining how to apply the building regulations to the kind of work they do so my experience is it's not as big a problem as it appears but i do recognize
01:26:11 problem as it appears but i do recognize that the approved document could always be easier to read the challenge with a document like this is it could well end up being a library full of paper if you try to cover every eventuality so it's a balance between those things and then
01:26:23 balance between those things and then the debate continues between you and the coroner
01:26:26 coroner um
01:26:27 um now when you say there
01:26:30 that in my experience it's not as big a problem as it appears but i recognize that the approved document
01:26:37 document could always be easier to read what
01:26:41 what what was not as big a problem as it appears
01:26:46 i think the general i i'm pretty sure at this point we were talking very that about the generalities of the um of the approved document um
01:26:57 of the approved document um there'd been a a number of issues i think one of the things that the coroner was frustrated with or or become an issue was that the um
01:27:10 lack on the house what [Music]
01:27:14 [Music] was of a design that was quite popular at the time it was built um it's what's known in
01:27:20 known in as a balcony approach block so that so part of the circulation and therefore the escape routes from the flats was via the external balconies which was quite common
01:27:31 common i guess
01:27:32 i guess 30s through to 50s or something like that
01:27:35 that but become unpopular in more modern buildings
01:27:40 buildings and
01:27:41 and fire safety guidance on that type of building wasn't included in approved document b it was in it wouldn't have been best triple nine one then it would have been its predecessor which i think was best double five double eight i think it was
01:27:53 double five double eight i think it was part one
01:27:54 part one um
01:27:55 um and um
01:27:57 and um understandably there was a frustration that you needed to refer out to multiple documents to get the answer to what um i can understand why the coroner regarded as a straightforward question um
01:28:10 straightforward question um and that was the question i think about whether the the panels needed fire resistance to protect the escape routes which i think was where there was some i think that's where the ex the the
01:28:21 i think that's where the ex the the surveyor that the coroner pointed to advise on building regulations had made a mistake um in in his report um
01:28:31 um because that code only requires um fire resistance to the escape routes where they're only in a single direction so it's a really complicated answer but
01:28:43 but that was i know that was one of the frustrations was that the the document cross-referenced um to other other publications which is frustrating if you're trying to
01:28:54 frustrating if you're trying to look at existing building and decide whether or not it met the rules if the rules are distributed over multiple documents that's that's frustrating i recognize that i'd had to do that myself um
01:29:05 um but you'd end up with a library full of paper if you put all the information in one document and that's that's the challenge you have right um now let's go to page 80 and
01:29:15 and if we go please to uh
01:29:20 line two she says this well i think the exercise we've seen in these calls indicates that it isn't a straightforward exercise in fact it's quite byzantine isn't it answer i'm probably not the right person to ask i've worked with it for a long
01:29:32 to ask i've worked with it for a long period of time which to me is why it seems very straightforward which is why we went through the process i've described in the lead up to the 2006 changes to ask people who do use it what they think and the feedback i get is
01:29:43 they think and the feedback i get is that people don't have a problem with it were you not effectively telling the coroner there that you were too close to the document to be able to assess in any impartial way whether or not its content
01:29:54 impartial way whether or not its content was sufficiently clear to its intended users
01:29:57 users i think to some extent i guess that is what i'm saying yes is and that's why when you
01:30:02 when you it's important if you are carrying out a review of something like that that you you do include the readership yes mr harold described you when he gave
01:30:13 yes mr harold described you when he gave his evidence on day 243 as possibly snow blind is his word uh as a consequence of having worked very closely with the proof document b for a number of years
01:30:25 is that was that a fair way of describing you at the time um i'm not sure if i'm the person to judge
01:30:32 judge but
01:30:39 what's happened over the last few years maybe that's fair the better question perhaps is is this is that the message you were trying to impart to the coroner yourself here
01:30:52 i think i'm also trying to impart to the coroner that's exactly the exercise that we've just been through with the 2006 review
01:30:59 review is that
01:31:00 is that um in order to ensure that it was as clear as we could get it we had gone to quite some length to speak to the readership of approved document b and identify those things
01:31:12 document b and identify those things that needed improvement um
01:31:16 um and
01:31:17 and we would have gone through the same exercise again with the next review um and and i i'm convinced that's the right way to do it um it's it's
01:31:28 it's been clear to me that as as i moved from working in building control to working in policy is that you very quickly lose touch with how the things working in practice um
01:31:41 how the things working in practice um and given that we didn't have a regular monitoring mechanism um when you came to do a review um an important part of
01:31:52 an important part of that review would be to start
01:31:55 start with
01:31:56 with a survey of users and and interaction with users so i think i'm trying to say to the coroner that's exactly the exercise we've just been through right did you not well why did you not mention to the coroner your
01:32:07 you not mention to the coroner your your reaction of horror to adrian prest's complete misunderstanding of the fundamental requirements in b4 which we looked at earlier
01:32:22 i guess i could have talked about all sorts of things i mean i i um
01:32:30 this was the first time i've been in in a coroner's call as a witness i can't say that it was something that i was comfortable with and i was probably answering
01:32:39 answering as helpfully as i could be but i'm probably
01:32:41 probably not not as extensively as i could have done well it's it's a question of impression when you say most people don't have a problem with it you had had quite recent experience of a senior head of building control
01:32:52 of building control who had checked with us another senior colleague and who completely misunderstood uh one of the functional requirements was that not something that you had recalled when telling the
01:33:04 you had recalled when telling the coroner that most people don't have a problem with it if i'd have recorded it i would have mentioned it but but i clearly i didn't and similarly when you had uh
01:33:14 uh dealt with daniel turner at ipswich borough council in the january of that year you yourself had told him that you needed to read the proof document provision on external fire spread two or
01:33:25 provision on external fire spread two or three times to work out what they mean did you have you forgotten that exchange i don't think it was in my mind i didn't think that was particularly significant um
01:33:37 um it
01:33:37 it if you're thinking that someone can write a book that tells you how to design every conceivable building in very simple terms then then that's not possible and i'm confident that that will always be the case
01:33:49 that that will always be the case yes
01:33:51 yes um
01:33:51 um but i'm quite sure you didn't understand that the coroner was asking for a cast iron 100 hit rate for anybody who opened adb to understand it pollutedly clearly
01:34:03 actually
01:34:05 yeah i think what i'm saying here is i thought most people understood it most of the time and that's that's reasonable but you can always improve it now at page 80.
01:34:18 uh line 12 the coroner says this i just query whether applying plain english principles or having one column on a page rather than two columns on a page will actually resolve the sort of difficulty we've been seeing in this
01:34:29 difficulty we've been seeing in this court
01:34:30 court answer the exercise that we the document we've most recently applied this to is the document dealing with the design of stairs and we restructure the guidance as well to make it easier to follow but it's difficult fire protection in
01:34:41 it's difficult fire protection in buildings as a complicated subject and i don't think you can stop that being the case coroner but it's such an important subject that it's one that ought to be accessible to the people who have to use this document
01:34:53 this document answer at line 25 my experience is that it is
01:34:58 it is and and
01:34:59 and and your evidence ended at that point now
01:35:03 it's clear i would invite you to accept that the coroner wasn't talking about the need to use plain english or shuffling paragraphs around or
01:35:12 or she no and and the exercise that we'd carried out on on the this new style guide that we'd adopted went a lot further than just using plain english and changing the
01:35:23 using plain english and changing the format of the document um um but it's it's a really difficult work to do um and um
01:35:33 something that at that time we were planning to work our way through all of the approved documents and bring them into that that new style
01:35:42 new style it was something that we thought was the right thing to do um
01:35:48 um and that that's what we were trying to do was trying to adopt a better approach to the way approved documents were produced i'm looking at the evidence can you help us to understand what it was in march 2013
01:36:00 understand what it was in march 2013 when you uh addressing the questions from the coroner
01:36:04 coroner that led you to be able to state with unassailable confidence that the technical content of the approved document on external fire spread was sufficiently clear to its users
01:36:14 users i don't think i'm using unassailable confidence uh i i i think that's that's stretching the point a bit i've acknowledged that the guidance could be improved and that we were planning to improve it which
01:36:27 we were planning to improve it which i guess
01:36:28 i guess is is the contrary to what you've just said um well let me but most people in the sector i i
01:36:36 i i firmly believed understood the principles that the proof document be was was drafted around right well that was wrong
01:36:43 was wrong mr martin since you take issue with the web at the question let me put it more neutrally um like question at line 22 but it's such an important subject that is one that ought to be accessible to the people who
01:36:54 ought to be accessible to the people who have to use this document answer my experience is that it is can you help us what it was at that time that led you to say that
01:37:04 say that about external fire spread um but it wasn't about external fast spread we were talking generally about the entire proof document and and i firmly believed that the 2006 edition
01:37:15 firmly believed that the 2006 edition was better than the previous editions and and
01:37:18 and and the people that i met and discussed five precautions with understood the principles that was in the approved document okay so i think that's what i'm trying to say there and
01:37:29 that's what i'm trying to say there and what i'm really trying to get you to to to accept and maybe you don't accept it is that your experience actually included
01:37:35 included some instances which were relevant qualifications to the experience that you're telling the coroner there
01:37:48 in that from time to time i'd speak to people that didn't understand it i suppose that's true um but as i said i think as i think you've just agreed to yourself is you
01:37:59 yourself is you you're never going to get 100 success rate
01:38:02 rate mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much well mr martin we'll have the afternoon break at this point we'll uh stop now we'll come back please at 25 to 4.
01:38:13 we'll come back please at 25 to 4. and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're out all right thank you very much
01:38:28 thank you very much mr 25 to 4 please
01:57:20 would you ask mr martin to come back in please
01:57:34 right mr martin ready to carry on yes sir thank you very much yes mr miller thank you mr chairman um mr martin we're now going to go to the rule 43 recommendations that the coroner sent making recommendations uh under rule 43
01:57:46 making recommendations uh under rule 43 um can we go please to clg four zeros one eight seven zero
01:57:56 and you can see that the letters dated the 28th of march 2013 sent to the right honourable eric pickles mp who was the secretary of state for communities and local government at
01:58:07 for communities and local government at the time
01:58:08 the time and it starts dear secretary of state latino house fire third july 2009 um can we take it that you read this letter in full at the time
01:58:19 at the time yes in detail and with care yes yes can we go to page three and i want to focus on the fourth recommendation under the second heading building
01:58:30 under the second heading building regulations and to prove document b now there's quite a lot of text there but can i take it that you're familiar with it
01:58:38 with it yes yes
01:58:40 yes yes and
01:58:41 and if you look at the recommendations under the first text
01:58:47 it says it is recommended that your department review adb to ensure that it first bullet provides clear guidance in relation to regulation b4 of the building regulations with particular regard to the spread of fire over the
01:58:59 regard to the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building and the circumstances in which attention should be paid to where the proposed work might reduce existing fire protection and second bullet is expressed in words
01:59:10 and second bullet is expressed in words and adopts a format which are intelligible to the wide range of people and bodies engaged in construction maintenance and refurbishment of buildings and not just to professionals who may already have a depth of knowledge of building regulations and building
01:59:21 building regulations and building control matters and then provides guidance which is of assistance to those involved in maintenance or refurbishment of older housing stock and not those only only those engaged in design and construction
01:59:32 those engaged in design and construction of new buildings now if we look at the text that follows the words it is recommended i think we can agree can't we there are three distinct parts to it yes
01:59:42 um yes the coroner asked that the approved document be reviewed and the consideration be given to three separate matters and let's see if we can take them off together the first is to provide clear guidance
01:59:54 first is to provide clear guidance in relation to b4 and in particular external fire spread yes yes yes the second recommendation was to ensure that the language and format
02:00:06 and format of the guidance were intelligible to the wide range of the users of the document yes yes yes and then thirdly to ensure that the guidance assisted those refurbishing older housing stock
02:00:18 refurbishing older housing stock as well as those constructing new buildings
02:00:21 buildings yes yes yes thank you now if we go to your statement please page 8 paragraph 23
02:00:30 you say it paragraph 23 there as follows recommendations from coroners are always treated as a high priority my recollection is that the latin house rule 43 letter was taken very seriously
02:00:41 rule 43 letter was taken very seriously by the department and by the ministers involved
02:00:45 involved what is it about your recollection of the treatment of this particular rule 43 letter that leads you to say that it was taken very seriously by the department um
02:00:58 a lot of people were involved in considering the recommendations and and and
02:01:03 and the response to it okay
02:01:06 okay and all all the way up the department and
02:01:09 and um certainly i was aware of directors being involved in discussions about that and and
02:01:14 and and i presume directors general and above would have been involved as well but i would have known that all right let's go to hom three zeros seven
02:01:31 this is a series of emails between you and various officials in the
02:01:37 including louise upton in april 2013 and we don't need to read it all if we go to page two we can see an email sent by mary marshall on monday the 15th of april 2013 at 6 45
02:01:51 on monday the 15th of april 2013 at 6 45 p.m
02:01:52 p.m uh to louise upton and brian lee uh
02:01:57 uh subject re draft latin house rule 43 submission fsa stroke housing now you're not copied into that but we can see from it that the response to the coroner's recommendation from the housing division
02:02:09 housing division of mhclg
02:02:11 of mhclg is being discussed there that that is in summary what's happening yes
02:02:16 yes now if we go to the bottom of page one of this email run we see that louise upton forwards this email chain to you the following morning april the 16th and she says housing comments attached
02:02:29 and she says housing comments attached do you think we should firm their mettle to put proper advice to mark prisk on the sprinkler issue i'm losing the will to live
02:02:36 to live you see that yes um and then your response moving up the next email in the chain to page one is as follows we will need to consider quotes unquote isn't a recommendation i guess there are
02:02:48 isn't a recommendation i guess there are two options try and actively raise awareness of the coroner's thoughts with all landlords a big and essentially pointless task second bullet point tell the coroner we've already raised this with social
02:02:59 we've already raised this with social landlords but for others it's up to them and most will be aware of the case so we don't plan to do anything bracket we only have to a duty to respond to the coroner not kiss her backside close brackets i'd suggest the second option i
02:03:11 brackets i'd suggest the second option i doubt housing will be able to come up with this themselves because they seem to be confused by big words you could put the second option into the sub to see if anybody shouts b
02:03:21 b now two questions about about that text there first on the sprinkler issue what was the basis on which you said it would be essentially pointless to try to raise awareness of the coroner's recommendation with all
02:03:32 coroner's recommendation with all landlords
02:03:35 i'm trying to think back to that time um i think probably the point is because all of those landlords would have been aware of those points anyway um and
02:03:50 as i recall in relation to the retrofitting of sprinklers um the coroner's recommendation was that landlords should consider
02:04:01 landlords should consider retrofitting sprinklers which i think is something that been raised with landlords on a previous occasion
02:04:08 occasion so i think that's i guess that's the point i'm making here is you'd need a um a communications exercise to say please think about this thing um knowing full well they'd only recently
02:04:20 knowing full well they'd only recently thought about that thing and and they couldn't afford it last time so they probably can't afford it now i think i think that's the point i'm making
02:04:30 did it not occur to you though that landlords
02:04:33 landlords as a group might take it a little a little bit more seriously if it if you're asking them was as a result of your
02:04:40 your uh
02:04:41 uh following a recommendation made by one of her majesty's coroners as a result of an inquest into six fatalities so i think the the the challenge for the department is that
02:04:52 the challenge for the department is that the department would not be able to make a
02:04:56 a um and this is this is a nature of
02:04:59 nature of the way that um government policy um
02:05:04 um impacts on something like this um it's one thing for the um the department to say take note some the coroner made this comment which is addressed to
02:05:15 this comment which is addressed to yourselves and what the department couldn't do is
02:05:19 is um put any more weight to that because that would be what would be known as a new burden um certainly on local authorities so there was a principle which applied in uh government
02:05:30 principle which applied in uh government policy and still applies today which is where if a government department says to a local authority you ought to be doing this extra thing then it is for that department to find
02:05:41 then it is for that department to find the funding for that extra thing um and so
02:05:46 um and so for a situation like this it's one it one thing to say we really think you want to think about this if you gave any weight more weight to that other than essentially repeating the coroner's words
02:05:57 the coroner's words um then
02:05:59 um then that would be caught by this um it's known as a doctrine i think it's a legal term i'm not quite sure why that's that's used in the civil service but um the the new burdens issue would have
02:06:10 the the new burdens issue would have been triggered there so i think that was the difficulty for the department with this is saying something um more direct would have created a funding problem for the
02:06:21 created a funding problem for the department the second question relates
02:06:25 relates to the second bullet point
02:06:29 uh the private comment to louise upton uh that you only have a duty to respond to the current and not kiss her backside discloses do you agree an attitude your
02:06:42 discloses do you agree an attitude your attitude to the coroner's recommendations which would not tend to indicate that they were being taken very seriously
02:06:48 seriously um i agree clearly it's it's an informal comment um i think i'm i'm describing that second option
02:06:56 option um as
02:06:57 um as the
02:06:58 the the statutory situation was that um under the
02:07:05 under the coroner's rules i forget that the legislation um the department must respond within a fixed amount of time but
02:07:14 but um
02:07:15 um there's no requirement on the department to
02:07:19 to do what the coroner recommends that's for the secretary of state to consider so that's the point i'm making here um as you say um it's it's an informal comment between colleagues and and
02:07:30 colleagues and and um
02:07:34 there's no more than that as far as i'm concerned
02:07:36 concerned i mean i think you understood at the time there was a statutory requirement under the coroner's rules for the department for the secretary of state to provide a formal response yes yes now this letter was addressed to the
02:07:47 now this letter was addressed to the secretary of state not this email of course the letter the rule 43 letter was addressed to the secretary of state was it your understanding that the ultimate responsibility for deciding on the terms of the response
02:07:58 of the response including whether the particular recommendations were accepted or rejected
02:08:01 rejected would fall to the secretary of state yes and i think the the first line in this email which is probably the one which
02:08:08 which is that having seen what colleagues at housing had drafted um
02:08:14 um they didn't actually when you're giving advice to ministers you need to give them some firm options recommendations and i think the draft that mrs upton had
02:08:25 and i think the draft that mrs upton had sent to me um didn't include a recommendation so the response from the housing directorate back to the secretary of state would have been will need to consider this
02:08:36 have been will need to consider this which of course was a fact anyway and that's the point i'm making is that you need to actually identify what the options for the sector state are um
02:08:45 um which is either to actively
02:08:49 actively alert people to the coroner's comments i can't imagine there was a local authority housing department that wasn't aware of this inquest
02:08:57 inquest um
02:08:58 um or um
02:09:01 or um or make the point that it had already been raised which it had been um not long before that i'm sorry i'm not sure i'd follow or
02:09:10 follow or really
02:09:11 really understand that answer i think the answer to my question is the question whether a particular recommendation is accepted or rejected is one which falls to the secretary of state yes yes and in doing
02:09:25 secretary of state yes yes and in doing that in accepting or rejecting a recommendation the secretary of state at the time would this right rely on the advice of his or her officials
02:09:38 to some extent i mean the secretary of state i mean it's not unusual for ministers to reject the advice they get from officials no all right so i mean they wouldn't do it without commute without consulting at their officials
02:09:50 consulting at their officials um it's been known um but um generally yes you'd expect you'd expect the minister to go back to a fish but what what you need to do in that advice is to say well these are the implications of the options that are
02:10:01 implications of the options that are available to you um and um i can't remember the detail of this note but certainly the challenge for the
02:10:10 for the um the secretary of state at this time would have been to say anything more then i hope you're all aware of what the coroner said last week um would be a significant funding issue
02:10:21 significant funding issue well do you agree that in order for the secretary of state for the department to take the recommendations seriously as you say was done and for appropriate action to be taken in response it would be necessary both
02:10:33 in response it would be necessary both for senior officials and for the minister
02:10:36 minister including the secretary of state to do two things do you agree first understand in full the recommendations which had actually been made yes
02:10:47 uh yes yes and secondly have a clear idea of the nature of the criticisms made by the coroner of in this case the approved document
02:10:57 document well it's not in the case of this email this email is about sprinkler provision no i'm asking you a general question oh i see yes yes so
02:11:05 so i could put it more collectively in order to know what to do properly by way of taking seriously a rule 43 record this rule 43 recommendation senior officials ministers and the
02:11:16 senior officials ministers and the secretary of state would need to understand the recommendations and have a clear nature of the idea of the criticisms made by the coroner yes yes yes now thank you let's go to paragraph 22 of your statement please page eight
02:11:29 22 of your statement please page eight um you you say there uh when the department received the rule 43 letter from the coroner with conduct of latin house inquest the recommendations that were relevant to each policy team were identified and
02:11:41 each policy team were identified and then policy advice was submitted to the relevant junior minister when ministers were content the advice was then consolidated and passed to the secretary of state who considered the advice and then signed the reply to the coroner
02:11:53 then signed the reply to the coroner now the recommendation relevant to you and your division was the recommendation i read to you the fourth one wasn't it which related to building regulations and approved document b yes what steps were taken between the two events that
02:12:04 were taken between the two events that you've identified in paragraph 22 the first being identifying the recommendation relevant to your area and the second being the submission of policy advice to the minister
02:12:15 um
02:12:22 my recollection is so it was something that was discussed within the division so that would have been myself mr bird um mr ledsome um
02:12:32 where we discussed those recommend recommendations um and essentially what the coroner was asking us to do was what
02:12:43 what we were expecting to do at the next review of proof document b anyway which would be to apply the new approach to drafting and improve the quality of the guidance is something that we were trying to do to all the approved documents
02:12:56 all the approved documents sorry and um i think having identified having looked at that um
02:13:06 um i think as a as a team we took the view that we were in we were in the middle of another project at the time um and i think
02:13:14 think we probably presumed i guess wrongly and that we'd be starting work on um a review of approved document b quite soon at that stage um within
02:13:25 soon at that stage um within within a year or two i guess um and um
02:13:30 and um so it made sense to us um
02:13:35 um to
02:13:36 to carry out those um
02:13:41 implement those recommendations as part of that um as part of that review um and that would have then been discussed by that that general you know approach sort
02:13:52 that that general you know approach sort of
02:13:53 of proposed a response would have been um looked at by uh all the way up the department of directors um i'm pretty sure um
02:14:02 sure um i think there were three directors involved in in this i'm pretty sure they discussed it um and then that would have gone up the line via directors general and and
02:14:13 line via directors general and and and i can't imagine that their permanent secretary didn't look at this it's quite an important thing for the department now the first ministerial submission relating to the recommendations involving your
02:14:24 recommendations involving your department well do you remember sent to you by you rather to don foster who was the junior minister at the time with responsibility for the building regulations um yes he was the junior minister that i
02:14:35 um yes he was the junior minister that i would have gone to first yes yes uh we if we need to we can look at it let's have it up anyway clg four zeroes one eight seven one
02:14:47 you sent this on the 11th of april direct to don foster yes
02:14:52 yes um yes yes copy to the permanent secretary
02:14:55 secretary and secretary to all ministers um
02:14:58 um now this is a very short period here between the receipt by the department of the coroner's rule 43 letter on the 28th of march 2013 and 11th of april now during that time that that period were
02:15:11 during that time that that period were you the one primarily responsible for formulating the advice to be given to don foster um i i was the one with the task of drafting the submission but the its content would have been discussed um
02:15:24 content would have been discussed um with a range of officials right so who else was involved in formulating the content of that advice was there anybody else other than you uh definitely mr bird and mr leds him um and as i say
02:15:36 bird and mr leds him um and as i say the content would have been um this would have been clear that director left work as a minimum you say definitely mr bird i think mr bird had actually left the day oh i beg you in
02:15:47 actually left the day oh i beg you in january of 2013 and been replaced by richard harrell am i right about that um
02:15:57 yeah i beg your pardon it would have been mr harold at that stage i think i guess
02:16:01 guess how did you and mr harold mr led some go about formulating your policy advice in relation to each of the three matters we've looked at together that the coroner had asked the department to address
02:16:23 um i think we
02:16:27 this was an exercise that was carried out internally within the department and the
02:16:32 the the time available in order to produce the draft was quite limited
02:16:39 limited because you've got a fix there's a statutory time table about which you've got to um respond to a coroner's letter and given that this would need
02:16:52 would need quite a lot of clearance that meant that uh if you like at the ground we needed to move quite quickly because we need to produce some guidance uh produce some advice which would then be cleared through the various hurdles
02:17:04 be cleared through the various hurdles and then through the junior ministers and then
02:17:06 and then the secretary of state would need sufficient time to consider if he was happy to sign it so that meant that we had a relatively short amount of time to do albeit if you like um and
02:17:18 um and so we looked at those recommendations um and
02:17:25 considered them um in the light of what we knew um and and came up with what we thought was the
02:17:34 the the best approach um and as i i i i'm aware that directors talked to um met to discuss the approach that we were taking i can't remember when that was though
02:17:45 that was though now um
02:17:46 now um have you read the department's opening submissions to this module of the inquiry i have done yes yes let's go to that at clg 3036387
02:17:56 what i want to do is ask show you some of these passages and see if you agree with them can we go to page 36 first of all please page 36 paragraph 112 a
02:18:08 page 36 paragraph 112 a uh
02:18:09 uh to e and on that in that paragraph it says having given extensive consideration to the response to the latin house coroner's recommendations issue the department's position is that a the department's response to the
02:18:22 a the department's response to the coroner was inadequate and should have clearly
02:18:25 clearly set out whether each recommendation had been accepted to what extent and nearly relevant reasoning b in particular the department should not have worked on the basis that recommendation for related to the 2000
02:18:36 recommendation for related to the 2000 and not the 2006 version of adb nor should it have concluded that the exercise to clarify and simplify adb in its 2006 iteration was not safety critical and therefore not urgent without making that position clear in
02:18:49 without making that position clear in its response to the coroner and thereby affording her an opportunity to comment on a fully informed basis c without having made its position clear in response the department should have treated work the work to clarify and
02:19:00 treated work the work to clarify and simplify adb as an urgent priority and so should not have decided to fold the work into a broader review expect it to take at least another three years d
02:19:10 d subsequent delays to the original timetable should have been highlighted to ministers and led to a reconsideration of whether changes to adb required more urgent progression and then over the page at e the
02:19:21 and then over the page at e the department missed the opportunity the department missed the opportunity to look beyond the recommendations made by the coroner and to consider how widespread the use of non-compliant materials on high-rise residential
02:19:33 materials on high-rise residential buildings walls and the associated fire risks
02:19:37 risks now i've
02:19:38 now i've i think we can take each one in turn but let me ask first generally do you agree or do you disagree with any of those admissions
02:19:49 with any of those admissions um i disagree with some of them right now let's turn to let's go to the previous page please page 38 um do you disagree with a and let's go back page 36 sorry page 36
02:20:03 and let's go back page 36 sorry page 36 do you disagree with a um
02:20:10 to some extent i think my concern as i said to you yesterday i've had no involvement in the drafting of this document at all which is probably appropriate i guess
02:20:27 practically everybody you know the whole line of the department at that time considered this response and this isn't something that was cooked up by a few junior officials and handed to the secretary of state
02:20:38 secretary of state um
02:20:39 um i think
02:20:41 i think if it's the department's view and and perhaps
02:20:45 perhaps the government's view that
02:20:48 that in future
02:20:50 in future this this coroner's letter and any other coroner's letter should be responded in a specific way then it needs to issue guidance at cabinet level to all
02:21:01 guidance at cabinet level to all departments as to how coroner's letters should be responded to um
02:21:07 um there is no such guidance in place at the moment as far as i'm aware well my question is do you agree or disagree it sounds as if you disagree i think i do disagree i think right
02:21:17 right at the time we
02:21:20 we considered the coroner's letter and drafted what we thought was an appropriate response um
02:21:27 um and
02:21:28 and three i i two ministers i guess uh junior ministers and the secretary of state were all satisfied that it was appropriate so um
02:21:38 um i i have an issue with that okay do you do you agree that it should have clearly set out whether each recommendation had been accepted to what extent and any relevant reasoning or not
02:21:52 i thought it did to a reasonable degree but i i can see how people would would would argue differently in hindsight um and i think that's the point i'm making is
02:22:04 is um
02:22:06 if genuinely the department and the government thinks that in that coroner's letter should be responded to in a particular way then that should be uh something that's set out in
02:22:17 something that's set out in in guidance um that applies to all government departments and that from the cabinet office looking at b
02:22:27 is there anything in b you disagree with
02:22:37 um i think i do um i think the department's response to the coroner's letter set out a time take a timetable
02:22:48 timetable uh along which it was planning to bring into effect those recommendations um
02:22:56 um and
02:22:59 that made it clear that this was not going to be done very quickly
02:23:13 so so i think on that point it was clear that the department wasn't dealing with this as an urgent matter um
02:23:23 so i think that's the point i'd like to make about that right paragraph right
02:23:29 right what about c
02:23:33 do you agree with or disagree with any part of c
02:23:41 i guess it's linked it's linked to b at this question of whether whether those amendments were urgent or not um
02:23:49 it is a
02:23:51 we didn't perceive them as being urgent at the time um i guess in hindsight perhaps one one could argue that that they should have been treated with more urgency which is the the argument that's been made made here
02:24:03 the argument that's been made made here um
02:24:04 um if that was
02:24:08 the only way we could have done that at the time would be to bring a halt to the work that we were doing at the time um and i i don't think ministers would have been
02:24:19 i don't think ministers would have been supportive of that at the time um i i think
02:24:25 i i think this position paper is the position of the current department led by the current secretary of state um we weren't working for the current secretary of state at the time so i i
02:24:36 secretary of state at the time so i i think it's it's quite difficult to look at this in this way
02:24:41 this way sorry that's not a very clear answer um
02:24:47 what about d is there anything you agree with or disagree with in d i i i i think i agree with d in that once once the original timetable had started to slip um
02:25:00 started to slip um then
02:25:01 then um
02:25:05 that probably should have been brought to the attention of ministers and the fact that one of the in amongst the program that had been delayed
02:25:14 delayed was a response to a coroner and and i think um
02:25:17 think um [Music]
02:25:20 [Music] the problem we had which i know you discussed with mr letzer and mr harrell is that having
02:25:28 grouped the part b review in amongst a much wider review of the whole of the building regulations meant that the references to the coroner's recommendations
02:25:37 um slipped to the bottom of the of the submissions and documents that related to it and um i i agree that that was that was a mistake and then finally at the top of page 37
02:25:50 and then finally at the top of page 37 e is there anything you agree with or disagree with about that
02:26:07 i i agree with that and and i think in in part um i'd carry some responsibility for that
02:26:13 for that um in that
02:26:19 i think i'd become entrenched um
02:26:22 um in
02:26:23 in a focus on what do we need to do to approve document b in the future um
02:26:29 um and did not properly appreciate some of the
02:26:36 the hazards that might result from materials that were in existing buildings um i think i mean this is focused on the lack of a house fire
02:26:49 but i think even in in that respect i i i accept that um i think
02:26:55 the department and and to some extent myself
02:26:58 myself we should have said to ourselves um
02:27:02 um this doesn't comply with their current guidance
02:27:05 guidance is one thing but is it does it present a sufficient risk that we should be raising it for existing buildings and i think um we were entrenched in in the in the
02:27:16 we were entrenched in in the in the mindset that we were thinking about what do we do next to the approved documents rather than what's the risking the existing building stock
02:27:27 thank you now let's go back to your statement then please at paragraph 25 page nine
02:27:34 uh where you s uh
02:27:37 s uh say
02:27:39 uh there you said i i'm sorry you set out the coroner's recommendation there
02:27:48 and
02:27:51 looking at recommendation two what you call recommendation two in the middle there
02:28:00 which focused on the format and language of the approved document and in particular on a review to ensure that the document was intelligible to users was that recommendation accepted or was that rejected
02:28:27 i think it was accepted insofar as was practicable
02:28:32 what does that mean it means we accepted that we needed to try and make the approved documents um as
02:28:38 as intelligible to as many people in the industry as possible
02:28:45 and and not just building regulations specialists i think we accepted that
02:28:53 but as we discussed earlier today [Music]
02:28:56 [Music] there will always be people in looking at their approved documents who might not fully understand it
02:29:04 is this right that the conclusion was in fact the the department already started to plan to update the format and style of the approved documents using using the newly published style guide
02:29:15 the newly published style guide as you i think had told the coroner in your witness statement yes um if we go to paragraph 26
02:29:24 and go over to page 10 in that paragraph in the last four lines of that paragraph you say
02:29:30 you say i feel it is important to note that as much as the department was intending to update adb in accordance with the new style guide the approved documents should properly remain in the realm of professionals as set out in the
02:29:42 realm of professionals as set out in the secretary of state's response to the 20th of may 2013. now are you expressing your own view there or
02:29:48 there or the view of the department at the time um
02:29:54 i think there was a view of the department at the time and that's what was set out in in the secretary of state's letter and was that the same view that you expressed to the coroner during your evidence as we've seen i think so yes i
02:30:05 evidence as we've seen i think so yes i mean it's worth noting um
02:30:10 i've come across a number of people in the sector that have expressed a concern that um
02:30:17 that um there's a there's a danger from
02:30:20 from writing the approved document in such simplistic terms that somebody with no training in construction thinks they can design a building and and i know that's something which a number of
02:30:32 know that's something which a number of um
02:30:34 um people in the fire sector were concerned about um is that you wouldn't want this so simple
02:30:40 so simple i mean i'm not sure that's actually a possible thing but i think that was a concern in the sector that
02:30:50 you don't want anybody designing a building they still ought to be competent people because you can't possibly write a book that tells you how to design a building it's something you need to be taught how to do
02:31:01 need to be taught how to do which professionals or categories of professionals are you referring to in your statement here um
02:31:08 um i'm not just thinking of building control professionals i'm thinking of design professionals so structural engineers fire engineers and architects i guess
02:31:15 i guess now the regulations of course apply to anybody carrying out the work don't they yes yes and that could be an ordinary householder or a builder with no professional qualifications and possibly possibly no experience yes
02:31:29 possibly no experience yes yes
02:31:30 yes so why should the guidance on how to comply be limited to a smaller class of person
02:31:35 person the class that you've identified
02:31:41 because you the only way you would be able to do that is to write a book that explained
02:31:47 explained shovel by shovel how to build a building um and um
02:31:51 um and um that's just not feasible but was that not rather the coroner's point she was essentially wasn't she rejecting your evidence or your opinion about the class of readership and and and
02:32:02 and and recommending uh that uh it be made clearer and simpler and easier to navigate for the entire class of readership namely and or including the person
02:32:15 namely and or including the person carrying out the work
02:32:18 i'd be surprised if she meant somebody that had no training in construction whatsoever i i i can't say that for certain
02:32:28 right did you think about this at the time i mean do you think how do we marry the need to ensure that it isn't a shovel by shovel instruction booklet to the completely
02:32:41 instruction booklet to the completely uninitiated on the one hand but on the other consider that it is guidance for those persons carrying out the work who are bound by the regulations that's something that we
02:32:52 regulations that's something that we in in developing the style guide and talking about the approach to the way we would produce approved documents in the future that was very much on our minds
02:33:03 now before the department received the coroner's recommendations when was it that the department had been had been intending to update the style of proof document b the style the layout the language
02:33:22 i don't think that was fixed in time at that point um so the the future of building control document had a plan in it that had been um
02:33:34 that had been um um put to one side by the coalition government when it uh came in um in
02:33:42 in um replaced by the the work that we've been tasked to do and sort of red tape challenge and so on um
02:33:49 um and
02:33:55 i think at the time i
02:33:58 i adb was due a review um and
02:34:04 and this was a a catalyst if you like to get a date fixed in the diary um
02:34:11 now moving on to recommendation one if we can turn the page back please to page 9 paragraph 25 you set it out there it's a direct quotation from the letter um provides clear guidance in relation
02:34:24 um provides clear guidance in relation to regulation b4 of the building regulations with particular regard to the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building and the circumstances in which attention should be paid to whether the proposed work might reduce existing fire protection
02:34:36 might reduce existing fire protection what was your own understanding at the time of that particular recommendation
02:34:51 i think to some extent it was a criticism of the of the bits of the appro proof document that the inquiry the inquest had been um looking at um so i think myself and my
02:35:03 looking at um so i think myself and my colleagues all took the view that
02:35:09 that the 2006 edition um
02:35:12 um at least to some extent had already addressed some of these criticisms um which is why i think we concluded that we didn't think it was urgent did you understand the coroner to be
02:35:23 did you understand the coroner to be indicating by these words that the guidance on external fast bread in particular was not clear enough to the reader
02:35:42 i'm trying to think exactly what we were thinking and i don't want to put words into our
02:35:46 into our amount i can't remember exactly what we were thinking thinking we came to the conclusion that the coroner was referring to the the previous edition we
02:35:58 in our view at that time improved that text um and i understand that's a contentious point now but at that time we thought that text had been improved um and
02:36:10 um and it made sense
02:36:13 to do all of this in in a single exercise and we didn't see it as being an urgent issue let's look at this theme as you pick it
02:36:24 let's look at this theme as you pick it up in paragraph 26 as you do because you you cover this there to some extent you say this the inquest has sorry the inquest had as the coroner stated in her rule 43 letter been
02:36:35 stated in her rule 43 letter been working from the 2000 incorporating 2002 amendments edition of adb as this was the guidance that was enforced at the time the works were carried out on latin house however
02:36:46 house however a new edition of adb had already been published and it was felt that recommendation one had already been addressed by the revisions made in the 2006 edition of adb
02:36:59 i sent a submission to don foster regarding the rule 43 recommendations regarding building regulations on 11th of april 2013. the advice was that issuing a new further clarified adb would be an
02:37:11 further clarified adb would be an extensive exercise and that it would be logical to include this and recommendation too as part of a wider technical review now and it goes on to support the submission etc
02:37:23 submission etc now
02:37:24 now if the consensus was that recommendation was as you say had already been addressed by the revisions made in the 2006 edition of adb is it not right that in 2013 there would
02:37:35 is it not right that in 2013 there would have been no immediate or urgent need to review or rewrite that section of the guidance
02:37:46 i think that's the view we were taking yeah right
02:37:50 but given that the 2006 edition of adb predated the latino house fire by three years and the inquest by some seven years how could it have addressed the particular problem with adb that the evidence in
02:38:03 problem with adb that the evidence in the inquest revealed and which concerned the coroner because the coroner was looking at the 2000 edition
02:38:15 the 2006 edition clearly didn't directly address um
02:38:21 um the issues that the coroner had raised because they were drafted before the coroner raised them exactly but that's the point we took the view that the changes that had been made had the effect of addressing those
02:38:33 had the effect of addressing those recommendations right i followed but does it follow but that in fact neither your witness statement to the coroner oral evidence to the coroner actually told her that the 2006 edition
02:38:46 actually told her that the 2006 edition of adb addressed the problems about external fire spread revealed by the evidence that she'd heard
02:38:58 um i guess that's true it explains doesn't it why she was left with the impression that adb 2006 did not provide clear guidance about external fire spread
02:39:13 that wasn't the impression that i got from her letter why did you not go back to her and in response or advise the secretary of state to go back to her and say well the problems
02:39:24 well the problems uh
02:39:25 uh at la canal about compliance with the 2002
02:39:29 2002 2002 edition have been cured through the amendments to the 2006 edition and therefore your recommendation one is uh has already been met
02:39:48 i guess we could have done that that wasn't the form of words that we we came up with
02:39:52 up with but i mean if you thought at the time that the coroner had missed the point or and the recommendation one was unnecessary why didn't you advise the minister that he or the secretary of state write back
02:40:03 he or the secretary of state write back to her immediately correcting her and saying well recommendation one is unnecessary um i probably would have introduced quite a lot of delays um as i say we we had to turn this around
02:40:14 as i say we we had to turn this around quite quickly and in order to meet the coroner's roles why would it have introduced any delays the secretary of state could have responded on the 20th of may in exactly those terms
02:40:25 those terms what was what was wrong with that
02:40:34 and at the time we we thought that was the the right advice to give um we looked at what the coroner had said
02:40:45 we looked at what the coroner had said we looked at what happened at the inquest and
02:40:50 thought about what what had been done to the 2006 edition and also looked at with how easily we could
02:41:01 go back and do that
02:41:04 revisit those particular provisions um and came to the conclusion that the
02:41:11 the best advice would be to give the response that we did um
02:41:17 can we look at the recommendation letter again the rule 43 letter clg 50401
02:41:31 uh page three under the second heading
02:41:45 uh she says in the second line that i'm aware that adb has subsequently been amended
02:41:51 amended and believe a further amendment is due to be published soon so did you spot the fact that the coroner had specifically acknowledged that the proof document b had been had been amended
02:42:01 amended since 2000 but had nonetheless made that recommendation
02:42:11 i'm trying to remember what we were talking about at the time which is which is difficult um
02:42:27 why didn't you go back to her or rather advise the secretary of state through the ministerial chain to go back to her and say you've quite rightly picked up the fact that adb had been amended after 2000 and 2002
02:42:39 2000 and 2002 it was in fact amended in 2006 and as a result of those amendments your recommendation one is no longer necessary
02:42:56 i guess we could have done that's not the approach that we decided to take did all the officials involved in this discussion leading to the formulation of policy advice on this recommendation agree
02:43:06 agree that the coroner's recommendation in recommendation one had been comprehensively addressed by the amendments made in 2006.
02:43:21 certainly within the division that would have been the case because we would have looked at it and talked it through um
02:43:31 right i i think above that level i imagine the directors would have just asked would have just looked and decide decided is this a an appropriate response to a coroner um
02:43:42 appropriate response to a coroner um which they clearly decided that it was um
02:43:46 um i doubt they would have read the approved document in what way specifically did you at least consider that the revised 2006 edition of the approved document had already
02:43:57 of the approved document had already addressed the recommendation um we thought at the time that um the
02:44:04 the the way we'd restructured the guidance on
02:44:07 on b4 made it more straightforward um i can see why people would dispute that now but that's what we were thinking at the time
02:44:24 i think it's right that your decision was to advise ministers not to attend to this recommendation straight away but to address it as part of a wider technical review alongside
02:44:35 technical review alongside recommendation too yes i mean one of the one of the problems if you if you're trying and had experience of this on other projects is where you take technical guidance and
02:44:47 is where you take technical guidance and you say can we make this easier to use um
02:44:52 um if your
02:44:53 if your terms of reference are that make it easier to use but don't change any of the technical provisions excuse me
02:45:02 um that becomes very difficult sometimes because sometimes the technical provisions are just complicated and we've certainly had that problem that the work that we've done in relation to
02:45:13 the work that we've done in relation to staircases um where um
02:45:19 where um i think it was mostly led by mr harold and mr kelly but certainly i had quite a lot of involvement in that as well
02:45:26 we'd come across a number of points where we said i'm not really sure how
02:45:31 how how to make this clip it's it's the text is problematic the table makes no sense or what whatever the problem was
02:45:39 was but to change that without making some sort of technical change would be very difficult
02:45:44 difficult um and so
02:45:46 um and so it would be better um
02:45:50 um to
02:45:51 to have the the option in your terms of reference to make technical changes as well as
02:45:56 well as just structural changes to make it easier to follow and that's what that's one of the reasons why we felt it was better to do that we had the same problem immediately after the grenfell
02:46:07 problem immediately after the grenfell fire when um the secretary of state asked us to carry out this exercise um and
02:46:15 um and um and that a considerably bigger team to do that with um
02:46:19 um and we came across a number of points um working with um various stakeholders in the working groups that we were working with um
02:46:29 that there wasn't an easy way of simplifying something without fundamentally changing that technical requirement um and and that would have been out with the terms of reference
02:46:40 been out with the terms of reference that we had and so we had to park some of those problems uh and move them forward into a technical review so that's why we felt um
02:46:50 um carrying out a clarification and improvement exercise an editorial exercise if you like without having the option to make technical changes um um was not a
02:47:01 um was not a an efficient way of working was that recommendation accepted or was it rejected
02:47:09 which recommendation sorry well the recommendation to
02:47:16 to not to address the recommendation immediately but to address it as part of a wider technical review
02:47:22 review was your advice accepted or was it rejected that was accepted was the recommendation at one
02:47:32 at one accepted or rejected otherwise the recommendation of the first bullet point there the coroner's recommendation you're talking about yes um
02:47:43 was it accepted or was it rejected
02:47:49 it was i i i guess it was accepted i i can see the point in the in the the letter doesn't categorically say accept or reject
02:47:57 or reject um
02:48:00 i'm not sure if that's necessary if if that's if
02:48:05 that's if government thinks it is necessary then that should be a matter of policy and not something that's left to individual departments to um
02:48:12 um consider on a case-by-case basis well let's go to clg3011293
02:48:19 this is the submission from you to the then minister stephen williams on the 11th of june 2014. now this is a year on after the secretary of state's
02:48:31 year on after the secretary of state's 20th of may 2013
02:48:34 2013 letter back to the the coroner at a paragraph three there you say under background following the latino house fire the coroner criticized the complexity of the guidance and approved
02:48:46 complexity of the guidance and approved document b and called on the government to revise it the secretary of state rejected this c flag b but did commit to a review which would deliver a revised document in 2016 strike 17 preliminary work is
02:48:59 in 2016 strike 17 preliminary work is now underway now flag b is simply the copy of the secretary of state's response to the coroner's recommendation letter okay
02:49:09 okay so it looks as if in fact the secretary of state rejected uh or is understood was understood by you to have rejected that first recommendation is that right i think it's a bad choice of words
02:49:21 i think it's a bad choice of words looking back at this um
02:49:25 i i think
02:49:31 the point we were trying to make was that we accepted that the approved document should be improved and had plans to do so um what the secretary of state rejected i guess was
02:49:42 state rejected i guess was that this needed to be done immediately um i
02:49:46 um i i think that's a bad choice of words in this submission
02:49:52 mr chairman i've got a little bit of a way to go before we finish this major topic before moving on to another section
02:49:59 section um if i was to have another 10 minutes i could finish a subsection of it um i'm in your hands as to whether we go on this evening a little bit later or or not
02:50:08 not but
02:50:09 but the answers are quite long at the moment and yeah well mr martin's probably getting quite tired it's been a another full day and um we're going to have to ask him to come back tomorrow we are we're going to have
02:50:20 back tomorrow we are we're going to have to have an imposition anyway because we have a secretary of state giving you evidence but if we stop at this point is it going to put us in difficulty finishing his evidence tomorrow that depends on
02:50:32 depends on the alacrity with which mr kenya asks his questions and receives his answers tomorrow morning but the answer is yes it might it might endanger um whether we finish mr martin tomorrow right if we were to
02:50:45 mr martin tomorrow right if we were to take another 15 minutes again no guarantees but i would be closer to be able to become well you've heard that exchange mr martin how do you feel about the afternoon has it gone on
02:50:57 feel about the afternoon has it gone on too long for you already um
02:51:01 um i was the honest answer to that is yes sir but um i think if if an extra 15 minutes will help the inquiry then i'll do my best to continue that's good of you
02:51:12 best to continue that's good of you i think the alternative which you might prefer i don't know might be to take the chance of having to sit a little bit late tomorrow because we'd like to finish your evidence tomorrow and i'm sure you'd like to
02:51:23 tomorrow and i'm sure you'd like to finish tomorrow as well um would you rather take the chance of going on tomorrow
02:51:31 um either is equally um well except that you won't have given up i'm afraid as i was going to explain to you we won't be hearing you first thing in the morning
02:51:42 thing in the morning so it'll only be a half day tomorrow i i suppose in in terms of my ability to give you
02:51:48 give you my best answers then i guess working late tomorrow is probably the best option better option yeah um mr malid i i'm lost to interrupt you part way through a topic but i think the
02:52:00 part way through a topic but i think the day has been quite long and um
02:52:03 and um mr martin will not be giving evidence first thing tomorrow
02:52:08 tomorrow and so he will be to that extent fresher yes
02:52:13 yes if we have to sit late tomorrow to finish him well maybe we have to very well but i think that's probably the better
02:52:19 better choice
02:52:21 choice um can you just help us with this um at what time would we like to be able to continue mr martin depending on the
02:52:31 the next witness two o'clock so if we ask him to come for two o'clock that'll be all right uh yes i'm hoping um
02:52:39 um that it won't be later than that but i am
02:52:44 thank you very much well mr martian we have to um interpose another witness tomorrow morning because one of your former ministers is coming to give evidence and he
02:52:55 evidence and he we'll be abroad at other times that we might have seen him so we're going to have to put him in at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning the expectation is that he will complete his evidence during the morning
02:53:06 his evidence during the morning so we're going to have to ask you to come back but not before two o'clock please can't promise you'll actually start at two o'clock but we'll do our best to make sure you do and then we'll reckon to finish your
02:53:18 and then we'll reckon to finish your evidence tomorrow afternoon uh even if we have to sit a little bit late to do that is that all right yes sir i i've worked with enough ministers to know that secretary of state's diary is is not something to be messed with
02:53:30 is is not something to be messed with lightly so i i well we said we'll take him tomorrow we have to do that so we'll we'll break at this point um as i said we i'm afraid we have to get you back again tomorrow but
02:53:41 back again tomorrow but if you could be here ready to start by two o'clock we'll take you as soon as we can and expect to finish your evidence then tomorrow afternoon yes sir and in the meantime please don't talk to anyone
02:53:52 meantime please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it that's all right thank you very much well then we'll break that and um we'll see you in time to start at two o'clock tomorrow thank you very much
02:54:08 [Music]
02:54:11 and mr miller i'm sorry to interrupt your
02:54:14 your questioning at that particular point but i think it's been long enough yes martin and we'll um we'll citizen i won't say quite as late as we have to but i think that ought to be the that's very that's very good in
02:54:26 be the that's very that's very good in order to finish him but please bear in mind that although he's starting
02:54:31 starting late
02:54:32 late by the time we get close to five everyone's concentration is beginning to indeed and i'm thinking of the transcriber's fingers well transcribers fingers yes a very important part of the
02:54:44 fingers yes a very important part of the whole operation we have to bear those in mind and if you think we're going to go um
02:54:49 um quite late could you let us all know yes of course we'll think about whether we need to take an additional short break yes that's very helpful thank you very much yes and then tomorrow morning we have a different
02:55:00 tomorrow morning we have a different witness at 10 o'clock we have brandon lewis
02:55:04 lewis good thank you very much well we break at that point and we resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning please thank you very much
02:55:18 you